504 THE BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB OF THE BRITISH ISLES. 
sixth floret, not to the fourth, as in racemosus and comniutatus. 
B. interruptus is further distinguished from B. mollis by its usually 
greater height, by its more biennial growth, and by its narrow, strict, 
interrupted panicle of erect spikelets, of which some are not 
unfrequently compound. I may say that I have examined several 
hundred specimens of the genus Bro)nus, but have not found any 
specimens with the split palea, except those which have the inflores- 
cence of B. interniptus. The specimen in my possession, which was 
gathered by Capt. Wolley-Dod in East Kent, and distributed through 
the Exchange Club in 1893 as B. mollis, var. interruptus (but which 
Prof. Hackel, reporting on the specimen sent to him, named B. mollis 
only), is, so far as my specimen goes, undoubtedly B. interruptus, of 
which I find it has the split pale and inflorescence. In conclusion I 
may state that B. interruptus, while more frequently found growing 
with B. comniutatus, also occurs with typical B. mollis, and with 
B. mollis, var. glabrescens, so that the characters cannot be owing to 
any peculiarity of soil. That it can be only a sport is to some extent 
negatived by its wide distribution, as I have seen it from Oxfordshire, 
Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, W. Kent and Norfolk, while Mr. 'Pufnail 
has seen it near Lowestoft in Suffolk, and from Eincolnshire. 
Prof. Hackel, while confirming my observations in the main point, 
hesitates to draw the same conclusion from them. He considers 
that the palea is in a reduced staie, and possibly not a constant 
character. It is only fair to say that Prof. Hackel has only 
seen a limited series of B. interruptus. — G. Claridge Druce. 
P.S — It may be well to add that none of the specimens of Bronius 
interruptus which are now sent have been examined for the character 
of the split palea, but were collected before that character had been 
made known. It will be well therefore if members will check them. 
If it be found, as I expect it will, that the character derived from the 
split palea is constant, I think they will be more convinced of the 
distinctness of the two species.— G. C. Druce. “ Is not this a 
monstrosity rather than a species ? Is it not probable that both the 
split palea and greatly shortened panicle branches are due to the 
arrested growth of certain parts, the cause in each case being the 
same and yet to be sought ?” — W. H. Beeby. Professor Hackel 
replies ; “ I have not yet decided if I am to regard this as a species or [ 
an anomalous form of B. mollis. The split palea is anomalous in the 
whole genus, so that I believe this form to have originated from some 
abnormal state. But it shows a tendency to become constant ! Next 
summer I shall cultivate it on a larger scale, and observe it closely.” 
“Yes ; Dr. Stapf and Mr. Rendle considered this a monstrosity rather 
than a species. The plant collected at Dartford by Capt. VVolley- 
Dod, distributed among the B. E. Club, 1893 plants, which was 
referred to by Prof. Hackel as ‘ common B. mollis^ agrees with Mr. 
Druce’s plant in having the split palea.” — H. and J. Groves. 
Elymus arenarius, L. Sandy shores below Highcliffe, Barton 
S. Hants, 25th June, 1895. — The only specimen I have. Sent, as I 
